REVIEW AND AI POLICY
AI GUIDELINES AND REVIEW POLICY
AI GUIDELINES
AI GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS
We recognize the value of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (“AI tools”) in research efficiency and making texts more accessible. Authors may use AI tools responsibly and with human oversight to support their work as defined below. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality and integrity of all submitted content.
Allowed AI use (specify if used):
- Brainstorming ideas or outlines
- Finding or summarizing related works
- Proofreading or editing their own original writing
- Translating their own original writing
Prohibited AI use:
- Using AI as a substitute for human critical thinking, analysis or expertise.
- Generating entire sections of text without human review or substantial input.
- Ingesting confidential, unpublished or third-party content into AI tools.
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
We acknowledge the potential of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (“AI tools”) to assist reviewers in evaluating submissions efficiently. Reviewers may use AI tools responsibly and with strict oversight as defined below. They must ensure that all AI outputs are verified for accuracy, impartiality and confidentiality. Reviewers are fully accountable for the content and tone of their reviews.
Allowed AI Use (specify if used):
- Gaining a better understanding of complex concepts or technologies
- Finding or summarizing relevant research literature
- Proofreading or editing their own original review text
- Adjusting the tone of their reviews for clarity or professionalism
Prohibited AI Use:
- Using AI as a substitute for human judgment, critical evaluation or expertise.
- Ingesting any original materials from submissions (e.g., authors’ unpublished work) into AI tools.
- Relying on AI-generated content without thorough verification for accuracy and impartiality.
- Sharing confidential submission details with AI tools or third parties.
REVIEW POLICY
We ask that reviewers only accept to assess manuscripts that fall within their own subject area, and that they declare to the editors any conflicts of interest with the authors they are reviewing (when this information can be inferred from the anonymized contribution).
Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: being close colleagues, family members, romantically involved, collaborating on the same research project or otherwise currently having a close collaboration.
We also ask that reviewers respond to invitations without delay where possible, and that they submit their completed reviews within the suggested timeline. When reviewers are prevented from completing their review in time, they are expected to contact the editor ahead of time, so this may be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, we ask that reviewers provide constructive feedback for the authors with concrete examples on how to improve the text. Of course, this feedback should not be influenced by the author’s nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or commercial interests. Feedback should always be respectful and not contain any hostile or provocative language. We therefore expect that our reviewers refrain from writing personal attacks, slander, sexualized, racialized, or abusive language or making other types of derogatory comments. When reviewers neglect to follow these basic principles, editors reserve the right to ask the reviewer to rephrase their feedback or to discount the review entirely, depending on the severity of the abuse.